I am writing to express my strong personal concern that the emerging campaign-related
scandals of this Administration have reached a point where our Committee's
jurisdiction pursuant to the impeachment power of the House of Representatives
cannot be ignored. Because this is obviously a matter of the gravest consequence
under our constitutional structure of government, I want to outline my current
concerns with you before pursuing the matter formally.

As I am sure you know, there is increasing speculation in the press and
in academic circles about what the alarming pattern of abuse of the political
system by this Administration may ultimately portend. I call your attention
to one noteworthy example in last Tuesday's Washington Times. There legal
scholar Bruce Fein posited that the President's use of his high office to
amass his political campaign war chest constitutes an impeachable offense
under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution, and calls upon you to commence
an impeachment inquiry. I have reviewed the article carefully, in light
of both the numerous media accounts of abuse of the political process by
this White House, and the current and proposed investigative processes for
examining this issue. I find that Bruce Fein's arguments contain a number
of disturbingly convincing points.

The Fein article, a copy of which I enclose, properly identifies the nature
of impeachment as essentially a mechanism to curb political crimes against
the nation, whether or not such crimes would be indictable under the criminal
code. The President's "merchandizing of the White House," in Fein's
words, meets that standard.

The potential compromise of national interests by the way in which foreign
money was imported to the Clinton campaign, and the very real possibility
it resulted in corruption of our foreign policy decision-making -- an issue
that the Fein article does not address -- adds a level of cravenness and
urgency that makes the question of political crimes appear all the more
persuasive.

What is especially noteworthy is that Fein makes his case without reference
to last week's revelations that there were indeed persuasive, serious, and
patently unlawful violations of Section 607(a) of the Federal Criminal Code
by virtue of the telephone solicitation for campaign contributions on federal
property and with federal resources by the Vice President. And, at week's
end, we witnessed the spectacle of the President himself refusing to assure
the American people that he, too, did not similarly violate Section 607(a).

Whether or not this series of criminal law violations would itself constitute
sufficient cause to initiate an impeachment inquiry, the cumulative effect
of such a series of systemic abuses of the political process, with the implication
of discrete criminal violations, points precisely toward theories of impeachment
law invoked by this Committee nearly 25 years ago in the matter of President
Nixon. These same theories were then, as they must be now, based on clear
historical precedent, considered explicitly by our Founding Fathers, that
alone among remedies to correct abuses of power or improper conduct by high
public officials, stand impeachment.

Of course, it is one thing to posit argument in an op-ed article, and another
to trigger the official action of invoking the impeachment process. In this
regard, I take notice that there now exists other, related pending inquiries.
Indeed, as a Member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
I am now participating in its comprehensive investigation of alleged campaign
irregularities as they may have compromised the integrity of government
operations. The Committee's mission and exercise of authority, however,
is specifically directed toward the integrity of government process and
therefore does not replace -- nor was it ever intended to substitute for
-- the concerns that attach uniquely to this Committee's charge under its
impeachment inquiry powers.

By the same token, while I have a respectful appreciation for the work that
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee proposes to undertake in this
area, I do not see where it is any more properly situated than our sister
House committee to ask and resolve questions, such as those concerning violations
of Section 607(a) of the Federal Criminal Code, that appear to fall under
this Committee's jurisdiction. This dilemma may indeed have accounted at
least in part of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's suggestion for appointment
of an Independent Counsel.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Independent Counsel mechanism is of recent
vintage; neither provided for nor contemplated by, our constitutional draftsmen.
Clearly, it plays a role, but not the paramount or leading role. The problem
persists that the web of Clinton campaign-related scandal has grown to such
complexity and proportion, and suggests the operation of such a comprehensive
scheme to undermine the norm of lawful and ethical government process, that
the Independent Counsel law may not allow a sufficiently broad mandate because
it concerns specifically the question of indictable offenses only; a very
narrow, precise and time consuming procedure. In any event, the Independent
Counsel statute cannot be viewed as a permissible or desirable alternative
to the Constitutionally-mandated process of addressing issues properly reserved
for impeachment inquiry. To treat that law in such a manner would undermine
our own Constitutional obligations.

In sum, I conclude that there exists, and I believe that the Fein article
articulates, matters of legitimate, procedural concern that, on reflection,
deserve further attention in the context of our Committee and its responsibilities.
I think we must remain mindful, as members of the House, and as members
of the committee that by House rule and custom has always been the vehicle
to investigate charges of impeachment, that neither the current nor the
proposed investigatory processes relieve us and our colleagues from undertaking
impeachment inquiries where there exists a systematic subversion of lawful,
political process.

Accordingly, I respectfully ask that this Committee undertake a fresh examination
of its proper role in the above-captioned matter, in light of what we are
now learning of its extent and pervasiveness. I look forward to working
with you.

With warmest personal regards, I am,

very truly yours,

BOB BARR
Member of Congress

BB:dl

cc: The Honorable Charles Canady, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution